No Coercion

Comment from Jeff Martin
Time: December 22, 2007, 3:57 pm

I am a Ron Paul supporter and honestly, this issue is a tempest in a teacup. $500 from a ignorant racist gets more press coverage than $6 million in one day from thousands of freedom loving non-racists. Why isn’t the press questioning the supposedly anti-war Democrats on why they are getting huge donations from the military industrial complex? We know most politicians sell their influence, but it doesn’t seem that Ron Paul does. He sticks to his principles, that’s obvious in the debates because he says what he believes even if he gets booed by a stacked audience.

He should not give the money back. I feel like he has explained his position very well and should stick to his guns.

Comment from Darren
Time: December 22, 2007, 11:57 pm

Fair enough, Jeff. Thanks for your thoughts. And good point about the lack of media attention to other politicians’ disreputable donors. They’re making a stink about a few racist hicks donating to Paul, but they’d think it odd if someone asked Democrats to return donations they received from equally despicable socialists or asked Republicans to return donations from Christians (many of whom are eager to see our country turned into a theocracy)–and there’s a hell of a lot more money involved coming from those two types of people.

Comment from Jason
Time: December 23, 2007, 12:48 pm

I am not a Ron Paul supportor. I agree with a good number of his policies, but I can not just out right oppose all foreign intervention. I do not like that America is the world’s police force, but I am coming to accept it as necessary, because there is no other country/group that is willing to do it. The state of the world today is just getting worse, Russia moving back towards its Soviet roots (although it would take decades for it to retrieve its former ‘glory’), Iran’s active nuclear cycle, North Korea’s exporting of nuclear goods, Kyoto/Bali treaties, Annapolis summit, Saudi Arabia trying to cozy up to Iran, China ‘virtually’ attacking us (government hacking, etc) etc, etc. Do I think that some of the actions of this administration have lead to/helped to grow some of these, yes. And it is a shame that Bush has lost all of his political will these last few months. Domestically, he’s always been horrible, but his foreign policy has been inspired (minus the last 8 months or so). Election ‘00 was about trying to erase Clinton, and ya we all got duped/happily ignored it on the domestic side. Election ‘04 was about not giving up the fight, and embracing European socialist suicide. Election ‘08 is about a whole hell of a lot of angry people, paleocons disgusted with the neocons, liberals disgusted with everyone (but moreso with the neocons), independents as usual disgusted with the establishment. In my view there really is no ‘best’ candidate. The Republican party is fracturing between social cons/liberal fiscal and fiscal cons/liberal social. The Democrats are always beholden to umpteen special interests, and their goal of socialization of the nation. And as always, any third party is too narrow to go anywhere, that’s just a symptom of the stupid two party system.

Can a true conservative, federalist, constitutionalist president even begin to fix the government? In some areas, possibly, but overall it will take at least a generation, and when was the last (conservative) generational political movement?

“So here are the questions:
Should Ron Paul engage in a public effort to disavow the racist and anti-semitic views of his WN supporters? ”

If he is to be a viable candidate in a national election, then he must unequivocally speak to the charges, and (assuming he’s not a closet WN), not sure of the correct word, but basically tell them off. To not speak to the charges but for a very vapid PR statement will not score well nationally. The original questions to the Paul team from Mr. Medved were some time in October. It was not till recently that Paul’s PR department even deigned to answer. That will not run well nationally.

“Should he actually return money those people have contributed to him? (The Paul campaign currently asserts that it’s better to keep the money since it will now be used to spread Paul’s message of freedom and it’s less money the racists have to spend on their own nefarious agenda). ”

The majority action in cases like these has been to donate the money to a charity. Doing so dismisses (public) moral responsiblity for that money (there will always be those who bring it up no matter what, but hey this is politics). Keeping the money contridicts that PR statement actually, in that they sent it to Paul to further their agenda, and in some small sections their agenda is Paul’s.

“Is Paul missing out on a big chunk of voters who would support him (and convince others to support him) because of his refusal to speak out against the racists? Are you one of those potential supporters?”

Now, mostly being a devil’s advocate here, but maybe his actions of keeping the money have done the political calculus and determined that he would lose more support if he distanced himself from the WN movement. The statement by Paul’s PR person is not a complete disavowel, it can lend room for the WNs to see it as coded speech.

Paul has been in politics for a good long time. He should know better than to ignore something even remotely along race lines, as its the favorite target of the Democrats, its their bread and butter.

—
“Ron Paul and the WNs both want to get rid of the Federal Reserve–Paul because of his libertarian philosophy and understanding of Austrian economics, and the WNs because they hate Jews and think the Fed is run by a conspiratorial international Jewish cabal.

Ron Paul and the WNs both want the U.S. to stop giving aid to Israel and basing our foreign policy on what’s best for Israel–Paul because of his libertarian philosophy of neutrality and non-intervention, and the WNs because they hate Jews.”

Here is another position I cannot stand with Paul on. I support Israel. Are they blameless these past 60 years? No, but are they the morally superior of the two sides? Resounding yes. It is a fools thought that a Palestinian/Israeli peace will sooth the Middle East. As well as thinking that the Palestinians currently have the desire for one, seeing as they are brought up on a mental diet of vicious Jew Hatred. And apart from that, Israel stands as a monument to what the entire Middle East could be, if the Arabs/Persians/etc move beyond their tribalist roots (the same roots of the Israelis) and embrace modernism. Israel now stands, unfortunately, as a miner’s canary. Anything that happens to them, will in a matter of years at most, happen to a lot of other western countries. France is already seeing the beginnings of their intifadas.

US support for Israel is in my mind one of the most important aspects of our foreign policy right now. It is a shame that the state department is trying to condem Israel to destruction.

–Jason

Comment from Darren
Time: December 23, 2007, 11:37 pm

Jason, thanks for your thoughtful comments. We obviously agree on most issues with a notable exception being, as we’ve discussed previously, the government’s role in defense and security. You see a role for relatively strong government action in those areas, whereas I do not. In fact, I have come to the conclusion that every government action, by definition, is coercive rather than being the mutually beneficial voluntary exchange that occurs in the market. Thus, all government action is inherently wrong, as is the very existence of government. That is why I favor the reduction and eventual elimination of government action in all areas, including defense and security. When we allow for government coercion in even a single limited area, we start down a philosophical road whose logical conclusion is a system in which we can’t actually limit government coercion in any area because we’ve abandoned a logically consistent framework derived from first principles. I believe the only logically consistent solution is to have a purely voluntary society and to allow it to evolve naturally, regardless of where that takes us. If there are individuals that feel strongly enough about Israel’s protection, they are certainly free to contribute money or even grab a rifle and go fight for it. But what they cannot do (morally) is use the government to force their neighbors to help pay for their cause.

Comment from dingofan
Time: December 24, 2007, 2:46 pm

Hi Darren,
Long time reader, first time caller.

You brought up defense in this article.
I was curious if you could elaborate on your views on government intervention in other countries with regard to defense/security, and if you knew RP’s stated view on this as well? I understand overt nation building is frowned upon, and in my own personal opinion perhaps rightfully so. We have helped stand up other countries or supported democratic revolutions, only for them to vote in Hamas. Perhaps we don’t need to be there at the beginning, like with Japan, Afgan/Iraq, to be influential later. Let other people go through that pain, and be ready to influence if needed, similar to Iran’s position on Iraq now.

However, I’m curious about your perspective on covert involvement, and involvement via proxy. Kinda like what we do with blackwater (It’s not america’s fault that Blackwater mowed down that bus of nuns moving adopted children from the orphanage to a puppy adoption center, uhh on christmas, which happens to be the adopted childrens’ birthdays). Like using Israel for acting out middle east policies, or using our own government agencies to help push things towards american interests in other countries. Is intervention ok as long as it’s unseen, not attributable, and disavowed by the government? Will ron paul prevent our overseas intel agencies from doing work that quietly helps american interests, both economic and defense related? It’s hard to put a success metric on work that can’t be discussed. While it’s a shield for hiding inaction, waste, and projects that blew up in our face, I have no doubt that things are better off due to some of that work.

Comment from Darren
Time: December 27, 2007, 4:06 pm

Sorry for the delay. I got gastroenteritis for Christmas and have been in bed for the past couple days.

My view is that the government should never intervene in other countries’ affairs, either overtly or covertly. Both approaches are subject to the same law of unintended consequences. Moreover, there may be little difference in the two as many of our covert actions over the years have not remained secret very long. Very little of importance can be kept hidden in the modern world. I believe that foreign policy (not in my ideal stateless society, but in a minimal state, for the sake of argument) should be based on defending the nation from actual (not potential) attack on territory within our borders (not ‘interests’ we may have elsewhere in the world). It should also include attempts at friendly relations with all other countries, encouraging open trade (with zero trade restrictions on our part) and travel. I believe that influence is best wielded by setting a good example, not by saber-rattling and black-ops to topple governments. My understanding of Ron Paul is he shares those beliefs, as he’s made clear many times in debates, speeches, and media interviews. RP has called for the removal of all American troops from overseas locations like Germany, South Korea, and the Middle East. He has pointed out the tragedies that have befallen us due to our covert (and overt) actions in the Middle East since the 1950s. He has stressed the need to drop all our trade restrictions, regardless of whether other countries drop theirs. And he has talked about the need to foster travel between the U.S. and all other countries.

You say you have no doubt things are better due to some of our covert and proxy actions. I don’t have that same confidence. In fact, I see a world that is more dangerous and less prosperous as a result of our intervention. I see a world in which America is increasingly viewed as a power-mad bully bent on picking on weaker states. I believe we’d have a much greater moral stature in the world if we kept American troops in America, opened up trade entirely, and passively encouraged openness and capitalism simply by virtue of our example. Radical Islamists would find few willing to support them in a world where America led by the example of peace and commerce rather than by force.

Comment from dingofan
Time: December 27, 2007, 5:56 pm

Very well thought out and articulated comments..

But how do you know what’s worked, when you’re not allowed to know what’s being tried or working now? It’s a poor argument, as it works against either side.
How do you know that covert operations aren’t saving lives if you’re not a player in the IC?
On the other hand:
How do you know that covert programs aren’t making things worse?

RP’s 1988 ticket for president advocated abolishing the CIA and FBI (sunday’s meet the press). While he hasn’t repeated that during the 08 election run (that I’ve seen?), that seems too crippling to me. Even if we aren’t acting on the intelligence, the collection/analysis of it, changes everything. To disable that function, or god forbid strictly militarize it (DIA does this for identified military threats only), seems oddly short sided for someone I was so eager to vote for. I’d rather know someone wants to punch me in the face to mitigate it correctly, than wait for them to do it and then respond. I’m not justifying pre-emptive strike (which causes everyone to want to punch me in the face), just saying I want to know all I can know with regard to what’s coming my way.

I like the thought that a strictly capitalistic approach to society would create peace. However, terrorist groups have wanted to attack us on American soil for things like religious differences which have no motivation against America or American foreign policy. Israel, which I am in no way defending and potentially believe the world is better off without, did not deliver the first blows against its new neighbors at inception, however has had to fend off attack from all sides due to religious beliefs, and a belief by some groups that they are entitled to that land via holy means. Our god awful foreign policy of tossing a few cruise missiles here and there, while disdainful, won’t resolve those feelings of hatred towards us. There have been fatwahs issued that those who threaten the islamic empire forfeit their rights to their lands to islam. While islam is splintered within its own civil war and this is not the going party belief, it has been expressed by some very bad people that America is no longer ours, and has been asked for by a religion’s god. While I have the fullest of beliefs that the Flying Spaghetti Monster will lay the smack on Allah, this doesn’t help the belief that non-intervention will make us safe. I like the idea of non-intervention, but I believe, and we disagree on, that non-intervention can live with reconnaissance and intelligence collection hand and hand, for the better. Perhaps shortly put, I want to know who’s pointing nukes at us. More importantly, shouldn’t the government?

I like non-intervention, but I don’t understand how it gets us out of the mess we are in? It’s a good policy for someone at peace, but we’re not. With our foreign policy so wrecked, and a trust from 9/11 completely shattered, and lotsa nukes pointed at us, and hostiles developing nukes to use against us, and with 13 newly identified bioweapons programs in Africa, why should we believe that our “new” policy of non-intervention will become accepted and we’ll be given some sort of a fresh start?

Can a public disclaimer of non-intervention really stop people from wanting to see american’s dead on cnn? Especially given the amount of damage we’ve already done globally, and with RP in office, the amount of subsidies to other countries that RP want’s to take away, the american intelligence collection that other countries use to protect themselves taken away, and their world police force taken away? I’m not sure how we’ll keep the global allies we would want, simply to protect our economy and keep people trading with us. Other countries can fill the “soldier on the wall” gap, perhaps gaining financial benefits of favored trading partner status in return.

What he’s advocating is certainly a revolutionary change.. Ironic that his revolutionary change is really just trying to bring us back to the constitution. Have we really run rampant this far?

Comment from Jason
Time: December 28, 2007, 10:37 am

During the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress established different oaths for the enlisted men and officers of the Continental Army:

Enlisted: The first oath, voted on 14 June 1775 as part of the act creating the Continental Army, read: “I _____ have, this day, voluntarily enlisted myself, as a soldier, in the American continental army, for one year, unless sooner discharged: And I do bind myself to conform, in all instances, to such rules and regulations, as are, or shall be, established for the government of the said Army.” The original wording was effectively replaced by Section 3, Article 1, of the Articles of War approved by Congress on 20 September 1776, which specified that the oath of enlistment read: “I _____ swear (or affirm as the case may be) to be trued to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies opposers whatsoever; and to observe and obey the orders of the Continental Congress, and the orders of the Generals and officers set over me by them.”

One of the principle purposes of a federal government is to provide for the external and internal safety of its citizens expressly against living, breathing enemies, and not from the evils of cigarettes, trans fats, etc.. Military isolationism is a wasting death, nothing matches live fire experience (not to say that wars should be fought for the sole purpose of providing practice), both for the frontline fighters and the commanders. Most major wars have progressed at first with political officers running things, and failing miserably, only to be replaced by battle tested officers who turn everything around. It also begats a lowered perception of the requirements of a well-funded and well-trained military. Without being reminded of how dangerous the world is outside our insulated shores, the public and politicians lose sight of the military’s importance and lets it slide, only to be hit with some horrible awakening that it is still needed, and rushing to repair damage done. I don’t see it as fear mongering to point out that country X is steaming ahead to nuclear weapons, or country Y is sneaking along to chemical/biological weapons. Nor do I see it as outside of the mandate of the military to deal with such issues. Is preemption the ultimate answer? Who is to say but the next generations. I feel that it should not be the only action, but that it should still be one to be considered. The next Pearl Harbor will not just affect a military base. And it will take a combination of Intelligence services (that actually work), home-bound security, and military threat to prevent it. Libya shot into line after the initial invasion of Iraq, and if you belive the NIE (and a lot of secondary sources agree that they did stop in 2k3, but they disagree in that it remained stopped, or that it really matters that they did), Iran stopped its outright weapons program because of it too. Regardless of how personally revolting the rhetoric of ‘fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here’ may be to you, in this current age, it is a very valid stance. Can the military solve all foreign threats? No, it can’t, but it must remain on the table. Diplomacy only works between two rational parties, and the segment of rational other parties in the world is dwindling. Economic actions only work in a limited scenario as well. Nothing stops a developing weapons program like a bomb through the roof.

Comment from Darren
Time: December 29, 2007, 6:22 pm

Yeah, I hear what you’re saying. Intelligence is important. And my gut instinct (sort of a survival thing, I guess) is to agree that we need to maintain the government’s robust intelligence-gathering capabilities. And certainly much intelligence gathering can be done without violating the libertarian non-initiation of force principle. However, from a natural rights perspective, I have to say that that’s just one more expensive function that the government must pay for by initiating force against tax payers. It’s hard to theoretically defend a CIA budget of $500B and trash a, say, HUD budget of $500B when the backers of each one claim that theirs is okay because it’s for the “common good.” Where do you draw the line? My thinking is that intelligence is good, but why do we need a government to do it? Theoretically, in the absence of government, insurance providers would emerge to insure people against things like common crime, military assaults from other countries, and even terrorism. The insurers would have incredible incentive to develop intelligence capabilities that would put the CIA and FBI to shame, all paid for by voluntary payments in the marketplace from their customers. At least that’s one potential free market solution. But I’m not nuts. I know we won’t see a purely voluntary, trade-based society in my lifetime, so I would certainly be okay with a government that was pared down to simply a defense-only military and an intelligence service.

Regarding the specific threat from Muslim terrorists, I don’t think it’s as bad as the government (or most of those running for office) want us to think. They’re not targeting us just because of religion. If they were, they’d be targeting all kinds of other non-Muslim countries. It has more to do with our power and approach to the world. Our power is nothing to be ashamed of and would exist for economic and cultural reasons regardless of our military actions. But our foreign policy is aggressive, clumsy, and reminiscent of the old imperial powers. It would engender opposition regardless of religion. Imagine the terrorist leaders trying to recruit new minions in a world where America had a non-interventionist foreign policy–meaning no troops in ANY foreign country, no aid to ANY foreign country, no trade restrictions against ANY country. How would all those recruitment appeals about America being the great global oppressor waging war against Islam play then? Not too well, I think. Maybe I’m being too utopian regarding what primitive adherents to an ancient, black-and-white, fear-based, hate-filled religion would do under my proposed circumstances. But hey, Christianity was able to be subdued and somewhat civilized long enough to allow commerce, scientific progress, and individual liberty to emerge. There may be hope for Islam, too. And more to the point, what I do know is that every time our government launches some new foreign adventure, whether large or small, to try to address what it sees as problems or threats in the world, it ends up having unintended consequences and creating more problems. Seems like maybe it’s just time to reverse direction, eh?

FSM be with you, dingofan.

Comment from Darren
Time: December 31, 2007, 12:26 pm

Damn. Sorry, Jason–your comment went to spam again. I just found it and de-spammed it.

Comment from Darren
Time: December 31, 2007, 12:51 pm

Jason,
I certainly won’t argue that preemptive actions are outside the legal mandate of the military. Unlike Ron Paul, I don’t go around calling the Iraq war illegal, since it’s not clear that anything in the Constitution was violated, and the terms ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ have very nebulous meanings in international affairs as well. But I also happen to think that the Constitution gives the government far too much power in the first place. I approach the issue from both a philosophical and a practical direction. Philosophically, I’m opposed to the use of offensive government military force because that’s a double whammy–the government initiated force against its own people to tax them to pay for the military action, which itself is the initiation of force against some other group of individuals. The government maintains an immoral monopoly on national defense and requires everyone to fund it (based on some spurious ‘free-rider’ argument). It doesn’t matter that Bob is just totally sure that some enemy is planning to attack us; he shouldn’t be able to force Bill to help pay for a response to it. Now, from a practical standpoint, I just consider the Iraq war and the whole ill-conceived “war on terror” to be monumentally bad policy decisions due to all the blowback that is resulting in the creation of legions of new America-hating terrorists around the world rather than eliminating them. Any way I look at it, it’s a bad move.

Comment from James Jeffers
Time: January 15, 2008, 7:35 pm

This is another fascinating area for getting the government out of our lives: getting the government out of the business of providing security. It would be interesting to discuss the assumptions we make about why “only” the government can provide such a service.

I liken it to the assumption that “only” the government can provide education (or, more to the point, educate the citizenry). What assumptions do we have to hold in order for this premise to hold? It it really unthinkable for the business of protecting lives and property to belong only to the state? Consider what a horrible job our government has done in this century protecting our lives and property here and abroad.

If you believe that the government alone can provide security, then you must also be capable of denying the function of security production to the market. Is this a debate worth having?

I think it is.

Comment from Darren
Time: January 15, 2008, 10:33 pm

Exactly. It’s one of those things where people look at me like I’m crazy when I mention it. People like to throw around terms like “free rider problem” and “non-excludability.” They never stop and try to imagine how markets for defense and security might evolve if allowed. I’m really partial to the idea of insurance companies developing defense capabilities and even doing things to minimize the chance of attack in the first place (like opening their own diplomatic offices around the world). They would insure people and businesses against internal or external aggression and then go to work minimizing the risks of such events. Sure, they’d end up protecting some people who weren’t paying them premiums, but things like that already happen–they just raise premiums to account for it (at least I think that’s how it works–I’m not really an insurance guy). Or maybe you’d have organizations pop up that operated in a defense or police capacity but were funded by member dues, like a Chamber of Commerce. Only a relatively small percentage of area businesses actually join their local Chamber of Commerce, but the Chamber ends up benefiting all the businesses in the area. Sure, members get some perks that non-members don’t, but overall the “free rider problem” appears to be not much of a real problem at all.